iirc mass shootings are a bigger issue in the US, but mass attacks are no more prevalent here than in other major countries. People use different weapons such as 29 people dying of a knife attack or similar.

Right. This is probably an important factor, along with access to public mental health. People are going to kill each other with whatever they can get their hands on, and in the US, it just happens to be guns.

Read this article for a pretty good explanation on how while the US has more gun violence than other countries, it does not have some sort of exceptional violent atmosphere or extraordinary amount of mass attacks.

I think the comparison is between industrialized, first-world countries with relatively high GDP's/standards of living. Comparing the U.S. to Yemen is unreasonable. Comparing the U.S. to Japan or Australia is slightly more reasonable.

Exactly, this is just another anti-gun hit piece worded in a backhanded way. It's counting on the self centered idiocy of the readers to not count other parts of the world which people get shot to hell.

It's like a title reading "Communities who let exotic pets roam free on the streets are 2000 times more likely to be attacked and killed by a tiger." Seems like a good argument for not letting tigers roam free in the neighborhood.

Except there's no benefit to letting tigers roam around. Legal gun ownership not only doesn't statistically correlate with gun murder, it also prevents violent crime by way of defensive gun use. What we need to prevent mass shootings is far better mental health treatment, background checks, etc. Banning guns as a knee-jerk reaction like Australia did isn't the right idea.

Seriously. I don't really have much of an opinion on gun control (background checks good, felons and crazies with guns, bad) but this is an idiotic comparison. They need to include stabbings and whatnot and compare to the overall crime rate.